Russia has filled huge swaths of Ukraine with mines and I doubt Russia will be sending Ukraine their records (lol) of where the fields are after the war. The minefields created by Russia’s war of conquest will be an ongoing issue in the country for decades.
Assuming Ukraine wins the war, we will likely see a large rebuilding effort, which will necessarily include getting the majority of these cleared out.
I think unless there’s a demonstrable factual inaccuracy in an article or if the source is on the blacklist a post shouldn’t be removed under rule 2. One person’s obvious ____ wing source is another person’s unbiased reporting.
I also think there should be some kind of notice when a site gets added to the blacklist where you lay out your reasoning and users can either challenge or support the decision.
I’m not trying to support the spread of misinformation and there are definitely some publications out there I don’t think anyone should ever read again, but this kind of rule can get out of control quickly and can create a lot of bitterness and chaos in a community if it’s not handled carefully imo.
We’ll try to be reasonable with which sites we ban, but we are not perfect. So we invite discussion in the comment section of the blacklist post.
We would love to do that, but we simply don’t have the time. As mentioned, we won’t delete the posts that have url’s in the blacklist automatically, so when you get the message of the bot, and you find it unreasonable, you can discuss it with us.
Ah, I must have missed the part about things not being automatically deleted, that makes all this feel a bit better.
We would love to do that, but we simply don’t have the time
That is totally fair, and thank you for all the time you already spend on this! So long as the blacklist is in the sidebar or some other prominent place that’s a reasonable time saving compromise.
I would suggest editorializes titles from the journalist themselves or even opinion journalism be removed. There is a lot of articles that get posted as factual but they’re literally just twisted titles that no one reads and it spreads disinformation because the journalist is editorializing the titles just to get clicks from their base.
First of all, it was a private company that had a 10 year contract with the Mali government. Socond, it expired on July 17 and Mali is now back in control of them. So in this case Mali government actually have acess to these emails now.
And that company was Dutch. From what I remember, the US military was not very responsive to the news that this company had tracked thousands of emails that were supposed to go to .mil addresses.
Regarding Rule 6, this seems to say that the same story with a different source is okay. I don’t think this should be the case. The same story regardless of source should not be reposted unless it adds new information.
It’s not meant like that. But the automod won’t leave a message if you use a different source.
The final rules will be collapsed, so you would only see:
rule 6: No duplicate postsIf a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
So what does “a source” mean in this rule? So long as the article text isn’t a 100% copy of a story that’s already been posted (like with AP articles that get reprinted in dozens of papers) we’ll be ok to post it, right?
Getting multiple perspectives on a story is a big part of why I come to forums like these, and I worry that it’s just going to get ugly if we have a situation where you’re removing the NPR article about something because someone posted the Wall Street Journal coverage of it first (or vice versa).
We discourage spamming the same story over and over again, but sometimes different sources bring different perspectives on a story. So it will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
The bot can ofcourse not detect those duplicates, so moderating it will be more difficult.
“moderating it will be more difficult”. So does that mean it is allowed or not? If you “discourage spamming the same story over and over again”, do you mean from the same person, or from everyone? So if ten different people posted the same story from different sources, is that allowed or not? The rules are not clear, and your further explanation still isn’t clear to me.
If it ever comes to a point where the same story get’s spammed to an annoying degree, we will communicate that we won’t accept any more of those posts.
But we probably won’t moderate before that.
We can always alter the rules later if that turns out to be a problem.
I disagree, different perspectives from different reporters almost always add at least some new information and seeing how many outlets are reacting to a story gives me a sense of how “big” the story is. I’d make an exception if the article text is 100% identical because it’s an AP reprint or something, but otherwise I think the mods should leave this alone.
e; apologies for double post, having some site/app instability at the moment
This is a clearnet site (as well as you being a fucking numpty) so anyone stupid enough to place any kind of order on there deserves to be in jail, if only to remove them from the gene pool.
It's been stifling in my area, too. 80F+ even late at night.
It's not supposed to cool down until this weekend, at best. It's scary to think this may be our new "state of affairs".
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.